<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (3) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85090</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that manufacturing varnish on an experimental basis does not exempt from duty under the Central Excise Act, as the varnish&#039;s marketability necessitates duty payment and licensing. Assembling machinery using purchased parts and fabricated components constitutes manufacturing, requiring duty payment despite arguments of the machinery being affixed to the ground. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition due to appellants&#039; non-compliance with regulatory requirements, affirming duty liability on varnish manufacturing and assembled machinery. The appeal was rejected, and the original order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:54:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122157" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85090</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that manufacturing varnish on an experimental basis does not exempt from duty under the Central Excise Act, as the varnish&#039;s marketability necessitates duty payment and licensing. Assembling machinery using purchased parts and fabricated components constitutes manufacturing, requiring duty payment despite arguments of the machinery being affixed to the ground. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition due to appellants&#039; non-compliance with regulatory requirements, affirming duty liability on varnish manufacturing and assembled machinery. The appeal was rejected, and the original order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>